Jordan Peterson perfectly defines STO

[T.C.]

Along with being a JP fan, I'm also a fan of the work of Professor Roger Scruton - a conservative philosopher.

I just want to quote him from a YouTube vid you can find here, because it not only ties in with this thread, but also fits in with the Samenow work, and also to the idea of our group here, too.

My fundamental point in the book is that we human beings have contrasting attitudes at our disposal. We can approach the world sometimes looking purely from what interests 'me', what 'I' should do, how 'I' should act to further my advantage and how I can overcome whatever obstacle lies before me in order to arrive at a better place.

Or, we can take the 'we' attitude. You know, what is it that 'we' as a community, or 'we' as a small group should do in confronting a certain problem? How do we work out a solution in which we still exist at the end of the solution, as well as at the beginning of it?

And this 'we' attitude, I identify as fundamental to civilisation; it's the thing which makes civilisation possible. And I see civilisation as a constant conversation between people who, although they have their own interests, are gradually, through the process of civilisation, learning how to renounce those interests in favour of some kind of collective and harmonious solution. So that the intrusion of the 'I' attitude is the thing that is most dangerous to us.

 

[Mikey]

I really enjoyed this topic. Thanks for sharing the video and the thoughts of all who contributed!

The issue seems to lie in understanding the risk that one takes when attempting to serve another. If one isn't able to fully grasp the risk involved, ie. emotionally, physically, financially or otherwise, one should be very wary of embarking on that particular challenge. Also, if a person has not developed his thinking enough to take into account in his own welfare into his calculation of risk, that will, I suppose, further complicate matters.

I fully agree with your assessment. Embarking on a journey to really help others is not for the lighthearted.

I think a good gauge of risk is the anxiety you feel when around certain people you know are troubled.

For me personally, this was not the case. For a long time I didn't feel anxious around troubled people. Rather, I was too naive thinking that my own inner balance would magically 'radiate' and 'inform' other people. But this was/is rarely the case.

As for the gauge of risk: I think, when doing something of real positive significance, the risk is always great. One will be attacked, one way or another, and one mostly escapes peril by a hair's breadth. Success is never guaranteed, but a precondition is that one learns Don Juan's / Castaneda's attributes of warriorship. To survive the "unknown unknowns", one must be impeccable: No mistakes.

 

[T.C.]

In this excerpt from the Jordan Peterson interview: Full video: Jordan Peterson on the Channel 4 Controversy and Philosophy of "How to be in the World", JP presents part/half of the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious in a way that we all can understand as the predator's/criminal mind.

Interviewer: "So what you're saying that although it might look like a victory for you, and the attention it has generated..."

JP: "It's not a 'healthy' victory.

Interviewer: "It's not a healthy victory."

JP: "Right."

Interviewer: "And taking back to that, you said that it's actually a sign of the times, where things could go really wrong for all of us really soon."

JP: "Yeah. We're playing with fire."

Interviewer: "Yeah. What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?"

JP: "Well, things go wrong in cultures all the time, right? The polarisation increases until people start to act it out...

[heavy sigh]

"I'll give you an example. You know, I always pay attention to what happens at the back of my mind - to the 'bottom' of my mind, let's say - and what I learned from Carl Jung, for example - one thing - was that if you watch what happens in your imagination while you're speaking and while things are happening to you, you'll see little dream-like fragments happening all the time. They're not in words; they're really more like brief dreams: Jung thought we were dreaming all the time, even when we were awake.

"And today, I was reviewing maybe ten or eleven of these newspaper articles that had played this twisty game and accused me of, like, "sicking my internet trolls on a poor, hapless journalist". And I thought - and this was the dark part of me, right? That's the shadow part of me - thought, "If I wanted to sick my internet trolls on Channel 4 then there'd be nothing but broken windows and riots." And then, there's a little part of me that thinks, "Wouldn't that be fun."

"Right. And that's where we're at. Because, I'm a reasonable person - a very reasonable person - even though I can..."

Interviewer: "And you have these thoughts in the back of your mind..."

JP: "Oh yes. And I pay attention to them, because I know that they're part of the collective unconscious, [The Predator gave us their mind.] right? They're the shadow part. And when there's part of me thinking, "Well, wouldn't that just be perfectly God damned delightful?" [rubs hands together] Then, there's lot's of people who are not only thinking that way sometimes, but thinking that way all the time. And they're just waiting for that to be the proper response.

"You see this with the Antifa violence in the United States, and with the Charlottesville thing as well."

Interviewer: "But basically, what you're saying is that when you have these dark thoughts in the back of your mind, you kind of tap into the collective unconscious of the culture you're embedded in."

JP: "Definitely. Definitely.

"Well, there's no doubt about it. The dark part of me and the dark part of you is the same thing in some ways, you know? And we live in the same culture, and so it's going to manifest itself in a similar manner."

 

[Lamp of Orion]

I think I get it now. The idea of STS/STO, or "service to others through self" vs. "service to self through others" as it manifests in this mode of existence, at one point involves either deluding yourself into believing or making your self-interest the interest of others, repectively. I remember an article in SOTT that mentioned how some high-ranking US gov't officials (can't remember who or what) who supposedly went the self-delusion pathway and through that, found calm; they couldn't continue on had they not done that.

Edit: Another example is Gengis Khan, who once said that God wouldn't have sent them (whoever they are, I don't know) a punishment as harsh as he if they didn't deserve it, or so,ething along those lines. It still "does the job" in itself. Or see how the SJWs and others of their ilk do what they do. It's basically involves the same thing Jordan Peterson did, sans or with a more tenuous connection with reality. Genghis Khan and the SJWs might only differ in that while the former is likely conscious of his orientation, the SJWs probably aren't.

FWIW

 

[Akul]

I think I get it now. The idea of STS/STO, or "service to others through self" vs. "service to self through others" as it manifests in this mode of existence, at one point involves either deluding yourself into believing or making your self-interest the interest of others, respectively... Genghis Khan and the SJWs might only differ in that while the former is likely conscious of his orientation, the SJWs probably aren't.

Trying to reflect on the topic, can someone help me elaborate the STS/STO orientation of the "SJWs" ideology because it's confusing? Few points:

1) We live in STS dimension.

2) SJWs with Marxist-postmodern identity politics perceive the reality in the sense of selfish ("self") power, while the group ("others") as paramount.

3) In doing so they consider the "we are all equal" group narrative against the "we are all different" self-narrative which considers individual/group differences.

4) Practically invert the "service" from "self" to "selfish others" by which the service component of "self" is ignored/negated/abused and there's no possibility of self-conscious effort.

5) Does it, possibly, explain why they do not solve the problem, yet react as "group" activists demanding something from others "self" without self-sacrifice?

 

[Ina]

I M H O . JP is a clinical psychologist and a good one. He can articulate a vast range of thought processes and their outcomes in terms of behavior solutions, and I believe he likes to deal with extremes because of his vast experience. However the bulk of raw material he deals with is emotions and feelings more or less accurately articulated. So unless anyone would qualify or quantify or even exemplify through music or any form of art how does The STO or STS person feels, the thoughts/words alone miss the opportunity of fully representing the meaning behind STO or STS.

 

[Ant22]

This was such a good interview. There was another gem that caught my attention:

Often what I do if I’m trying to solve a problem, If I have a problem with my own behaviour or maybe I’m having problems in my family, I’ll go sit on a bed or a chair and I’ll think, OK, I would like an answer to this. I would like to know the answer to this and I’m willing to accept whatever answer is appropriate. Because usually you get an answer you don’t like and if it’s a real answer it’s not something you’re going to be all that happy about. And then magically, so to speak, an answer appears and I think that’s a meditative practice.

This sounded like a description of non-anticipation put in practice. Being open to influences up there without trying to force those influences to provide what we want down here.

(...)

Interviewer: "And you have these thoughts in the back of your mind..."

JP: "Oh yes. And I pay attention to them, because I know that they're part of the collective unconscious, [The Predator gave us their mind.] right? They're the shadow part. And when there's part of me thinking, "Well, wouldn't that just be perfectly God damned delightful?" [rubs hands together] Then, there's lot's of people who are not only thinking that way sometimes, but thinking that way all the time. And they're just waiting for that to be the proper response.

"You see this with the Antifa violence in the United States, and with the Charlottesville thing as well."

Interviewer: "But basically, what you're saying is that when you have these dark thoughts in the back of your mind, you kind of tap into the collective unconscious of the culture you're embedded in."

JP: "Definitely. Definitely.

"Well, there's no doubt about it. The dark part of me and the dark part of you is the same thing in some ways, you know? And we live in the same culture, and so it's going to manifest itself in a similar manner."

This reminds me of a quote from Collingwood: "Knowing yourself means knowing what you can do; and since nobody knows what he can do until he tries, the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is."

During his recent book presentation event in London JP talked about atrocities of the 20th century and the recent times as being within each human being's capacity and it reminded me of the Collingwood quote above. Peterson said that, to paraphrase, if you can't understand mass shooters you're not in touch with the part of yourself that is capable of doing it. He also suggested imagining putting yourself in the position of an Auschwitz guard who is enjoying what he's doing. I guess he might have used those analogies in his videos but I hadn't heard them before.

Also, apart from defining STO so accurately Peterson also defined the predator's mind shockingly well too. He called it "the inner predator" and the "evolutionary memory of the predator".

It's amazing how many great concepts and ideas Peterson's work overlaps with.

Piaget's contribution in this regard is that how you live should be viewed as a kind of game that you're playing. And that what makes someone the best at playing a game isn't just the fact that they can win it: but most importantly that they are able to play the game in such a manner that they will be allowed to play again and again, in the future that they will inevitably find themselves. We call this 'sportsmanship' in actual game playing, but again, it's a result of Piaget's philosophy of morality.

I covered Piaget when I was at uni but it would be useful to re-look into his work. I think Prof. Roger Scruton is worth looking into as well.

 

[Voyageur]

Thanks for sharing, T.C.!

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but there is a part of the following interview where Jordan speaks a bit more about his understanding of "service to others" (it should start at the right time, around 19:00):

http://<iframe width="560" height="...w="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here is a quote from the video:

"You are aiming to fulfill yourself in a manner that allows you to expand in your psychological strength. So you have to be doing something that is good for you now, but that also makes you stronger in the future. And at the same time, you have to do something that is good for other people around you now, and good for them in the future. So it's not just service to others, because that doesn't take you into account. And it's obviously not the selfish pursuit of pleasure, partly because it doesn't work very well, these are just impractical solutions."

He then gives the example of his relationship with his son, where he tried to treat him well etc. The selfish component here is that he wants to have a nice and enjoyable relationship with his son. But at the same time, it's good for his son as well and for both of them in the future. It's basically about working for your own future self and the future selves of others. I think it's a good way of putting it!

He then goes on to say that there is something like a "sixth sense" where we know that in a given moment, all these things are perfectly aligned, and we experience it as a "sense of meaning".

Haven't watched the rest, but I found this passage very interesting.

Had a chance to listen to the whole interview, so thanks for the summaries too.

Being that this interview was variegated in subjects and placed here as an STO reference, took note (after the one hour mark) of some of the different subjects.

JP brings up 'uncomfortable conversations.' And this brought up an interesting discussion concerning the hard conversations we can have (to have them or not) and the timeline involved as to why we would have them, especially with family etc., which is part of the STO. Not said directly in what came up in thinking, was this is possibly the very disconnect (politically - laws/free speech, SJW's etc) when "uncomfortable conversations" are not allowed under a plethora of new laws and social media attacks as we have seen. In this light, there is absolutely bullying and harassment; let's say at work, and there are also mechanisms for this and light needs to be pointed at this, however, victim-hood can percolate without cause whereby it can be used with new laws for retributions based on ones inability to face the uncomfortable (conversations) or face themselves.

JP discussed Jung - he said Jung (when asked if he followed a religion - aside from his eastern leanings) was more the true Christian (the hard path) and he discusses polytheism vs. monotheism, and makes his case for the latter. He discusses taking the sins upon yourself (Christ reference) - knowing the dichotomy of good and evil, knowing you could be, or have the propensity for either.

The subject came up (discussed for may be 2 - 3 minutes) of mental pathology - psychopathy (P's) in particular. JP said "The "psychopath idea is not something I've been comfortable with"- the orientation of them he gets, he has studied it deeply, yet were they born like that is a harder one for him to consider. He says, they have surely orientated themselves to evil/pain. I get the impression he is talking about the unsuccessful P's and has not filtered in the successful P's. JP said they would have to be brutally mescaline, by temperament, and then badly socialized and then make terrible decisions (in reference to be born like this). He said, we don't know enough about the brain structure (are they born like this) to make claims such as this.

This got dropped then.

Along the way he makes a number of observations that even had his interviewer beside himself. Overall, it was a fascinating talk, of which many things that come from JP are, and he is a welcomed counterbalance to our times.

Thanks a lot for posting the interview.

 

[Fluffy]

Thanks T.C. for sharing this.

... I can do what I think is best for me, but at the same time I can do what's best for others. And I've also defined what's best for me as what is simultaneously best for others.

It would be a first step towards STO I guess.
Then one must wonder if it is really, objectively, best for others.
The mind can be easily tricked by STS bias.
How one may be so sure that it's best for others, and even for oneself ?

I was thinking along those lines too. When can one be so sure what is best for others? This 3D STS experience is a learning environment, a school, and we need all kinds of teachers and mirrors, some of them must undo us to our very core and instil fear, inflict pain and forge suffering just to break us open and give a chance to
shine light on the darkness... in other words, learn and integrate. Without that there is no duality and our polar experience becomes biased and unbalanced. The best thing for one person might be their worst thing for another depending on their situation and level of awareness and lessons that needs attention.

Certainly, wanting to share his knowledge and experience and pass it along, that sounds like STO to me, yet I'm under the impression that the best way of being of service is foucussing on making the self complete and whole while bringing those who ask to follow you along. Not by deciding you know what is best for them and their individual experience and journey.

(Cool as, I'm on my iPhone writing this and while typing the part about instilling fear and pain I received a phone call from Ascension Island, it rang three times then hung up- is that a sign or what (I have had them from Seychelles a few times before, I'm guessing they just want to steal my phone credit or something))

 

[Cosmos]

See here, it looks like Peterson started to Channel at some point after a deep longing and asking for the truth.

 

[Turgon]

Came across this short video which adds to Peterson's understanding of STO. The first thing I thought about when watching it was this quote from the C's:

The next time you feel yourself slipping into despair just tell others how you are feeling and think of something that you can do for another to prevent them from suffering the same feelings. Thus you will witness the birth of true empathy.

http://<iframe width="854" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[goyacobol]

Wow, this is such a great thread. I was looking for a place to share a Jordan Peterson video that made me realize why so many forum members reference him. It is not that I haven't read or viewed any of his quotes and videos here on the forum but today it just hit me that he is doing a lot of great things by being able to reach many people (especially younger of college age).

He is to me kind of a reverse Gurdjieff. While Gurdjieff seemed to have started from the esoteric and developed ideas that were a psychology that was ahead of his time Peterson starts from a background in psychology (although mingled with some of Jung's archetype concepts) and then links them to what seems to be the more esoteric/spiritual aspect of life.

I do believe he has somehow almost become a willing channel/conduit in the pursuit of truth. It is remarkable to me how close he is to what the Cs have given to us through Laura.

Just to refresh my/our memory I would like to quote what I think is the Cs definition of STO:

Session 10 December 1994:

Q: (T) You talk about both STO and STS. Yet you tell us that we need to learn to be STO. Why is there a difference between what we have to do and what you are doing?

A: STO is balance because you serve self through others.

Q: (T) You have said a couple of times that you are STS by being STO. Is this not true?

A: Yes. Already answered.

Q: (T) Kind of like: what goes around, comes around?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Is STO a means to an end for STS?

A: No. STO is balance. STS is imbalance.

Q: (T) How can you be STS through STO if STS is imbalance?

A: STO flows outward and touches all including point of origin, STS flows inward and touches only origin point.

While this STS/STO duality concept may have been talked about in different religions/ideologies/philosophies I think the Cs have said it in such a simple way that it can just go right over our heads. And I am not even so sure that previous eras have given the correct definition. I think the Cs definition is very subtle because at first glance is seems so simple.

The following video starts with an interview by a French journalist and demonstrates why you shouldn't try to corner a wise psychologist/shaman and then towards the end has clips that give clues to how his own pain and suffering have made him the man he is today.

 

[Ca.]

Nice catch T.C.! Thanks you.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Wow, this is such a great thread. I was looking for a place to share a Jordan Peterson video that made me realize why so many forum members reference him. It is not that I haven't read or viewed any of his quotes and videos here on the forum but today it just hit me that he is doing a lot of great things by being able to reach many people (especially younger of college age).

He is to me kind of a reverse Gurdjieff. While Gurdjieff seemed to have started from the esoteric and developed ideas that were a psychology that was ahead of his time Peterson starts from a background in psychology (although mingled with some of Jung's archetype concepts) and then links them to what seems to be the more esoteric/spiritual aspect of life.

I do believe he has somehow almost become a willing channel/conduit in the pursuit of truth. It is remarkable to me how close he is to what the Cs have given to us through Laura.

Just to refresh my/our memory I would like to quote what I think is the Cs definition of STO:

Session 10 December 1994:


While this STS/STO duality concept may have been talked about in different religions/ideologies/philosophies I think the Cs have said it in such a simple way that it can just go right over our heads. And I am not even so sure that previous eras have given the correct definition. I think the Cs definition is very subtle because at first glance is seems so simple.

The following video starts with an interview by a French journalist and demonstrates why you shouldn't try to corner a wise psychologist/shaman and then towards the end has clips that give clues to how his own pain and suffering have made him the man he is today.

goyacobol. Thank you so much for that video

 

[Joe]

Add it all up, and Peterson had made about $10 million in the past year. But he sure earned it, and then some.